Randomized trial of automated, electronic monitoring to facilitate early detection of sepsis in the intensive care unit

Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Viriginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Critical care medicine (Impact Factor: 6.31). 05/2012; 40(7):2096-101. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318250a887
Source: PubMed


To determine whether automated identification with physician notification of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome in medical intensive care unit patients expedites early administration of new antibiotics or improvement of other patient outcomes in patients with sepsis.
: A prospective randomized, controlled, single center study.
Medical intensive care unit of an academic, tertiary care medical center.
Four hundred forty-two consecutive patients admitted over a 4-month period who met modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in a medical intensive care unit.
Patients were randomized to monitoring by an electronic "Listening Application" to detect modified (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) criteria vs. usual care. The listening application notified physicians in real time when modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were detected, but did not provide management recommendations.
The median time to new antibiotics was similar between the intervention and usual care groups when comparing among all patients (6.0 hr vs. 6.1 hr, p = .95), patients with sepsis (5.3 hr vs. 5.1 hr; p = .90), patients on antibiotics at enrollment (5.2 hr vs. 7.0 hr, p = .27), or patients not on antibiotics at enrollment (5.2 hr vs. 5.1 hr, p = .85). The amount of fluid administered following detection of modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria was similar between groups whether comparing all patients or only patients who were hypotensive at enrollment. Other clinical outcomes including intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and mortality were not shown to be different between patients in the intervention and control groups.
Realtime alerts of modified systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria to physicians in one tertiary care medical intensive care unit were feasible and safe but did not influence measured therapeutic interventions for sepsis or significantly alter clinical outcomes.

Download full-text


Available from: Anne Miller, Jan 05, 2015
99 Reads
  • Source
    • "This increases false alarm rates in monitors [36]–[38], which leads to staff desensitization [30], [39], [40]. Clinicians cannot rely on analyzing artifact-laden monitor data [41], which in the past has resulted in incorrect diagnoses [33], [42]; unnecessary therapy; surgery and iatrogenic diseases [32]. Independent research groups have developed a variety of post processing techniques to address the problem of artifacts in OEM monitor data. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Artifact Detection (AD) techniques minimize the impact of artifacts on physiologic data acquired in Critical Care Units (CCU) by assessing quality of data prior to Clinical Event Detection (CED) and Parameter Derivation (PD). This methodological review introduces unique taxonomies to synthesize over 80 AD algorithms based on these six themes: (1) CCU; (2) Physiologic Data Source; (3) Harvested data; (4) Data Analysis; (5) Clinical Evaluation; and (6) Clinical Implementation. Review results show that most published algorithms: (a) are designed for one specific type of CCU; (b) are validated on data harvested only from one OEM monitor; (c) generate Signal Quality Indicators (SQI) that are not yet formalised for useful integration in clinical workflows; (d) operate either in standalone mode or coupled with CED or PD applications (e) are rarely evaluated in real-time; and (f) are not implemented in clinical practice. In conclusion, it is recommended that AD algorithms conform to generic input and output interfaces with commonly defined data: (1) type; (2) frequency; (3) length; and (4) SQIs. This shall promote (a) reusability of algorithms across different CCU domains; (b) evaluation on different OEM monitor data; (c) fair comparison through formalised SQIs; (d) meaningful integration with other AD, CED and PD algorithms; and (e) real-time implementation in clinical workflows.
    01/2013; 6:127-142. DOI:10.1109/RBME.2013.2243724
  • Critical care medicine 07/2012; 40(7):2242-3. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318256b99b · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Vital signs are critical data in the care of hospitalized patients, but the accuracy with which respiratory rates are recorded in this population remains uncertain. We used a novel flash mob research approach to evaluate the accuracy of recorded respiratory rates in inpatients. Methods: This was a single-day, resident-led, prospective observational study of recorded vs directly observed vital signs in nonventilated patients not in the ICU on internal medicine teaching services at six large tertiary-care centers across the United States. Results: Among the 368 inpatients included, the median respiratory rate was 16 breaths/min for the directly observed values and 18 breaths/min for the recorded values, with a median difference of 2 breaths/min (P < .001). Respiratory rates of 18 or 20 breaths/min accounted for 71.8% (95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%) of the recorded values compared with 13.0% (95% CI, 9.5%-16.5%) of the directly observed measurements. For individual patients, there was less agreement between the recorded and the directly observed respiratory rate compared with pulse rate. Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients across the United States, recorded respiratory rates are higher than directly observed measurements and are significantly more likely to be 18 or 20 breaths/min.
    Chest 11/2012; 143(6). DOI:10.1378/chest.12-1837 · 7.48 Impact Factor
Show more